Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

MNHQ have commented on this thread

1 2

MNHQ have commented on this thread

News

Joanne Mjadzelics child abuse trial (title edited by MNHQ)

35 replies

MoanCollins · 12/01/2015 18:07

Has anybody been following this?

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jury-begin-considering-verdicts-trial-8430814

Related to the horrible Ian Watkins case from 2013. Some really unpleasant stuff in there.

The verdict is probably due tomorrow. It seems like it's dependent on whether or not the jury believe she was doing it to trap him or if she was enthusiastically joining in and only reported when she got jealous he was abusing children with other women instead of her.

I'm not sure but tending towards the latter. She admitted possessing and sending all the images but later on said that she didn't remember sending them and hadn't searched for them. But if she had sent them (which she'd already admitted, but said she had a reason for) she must have found them somewhere and child porn images don't just spontaneously appear on your computer, you have to look for them. So she seems like a dishonest witness. And she was talking to him about raping and murdering babies, even if she wanted to catch him there was no reason to go that far and feed his fantasies.

The police are coming out of it very badly for not acting on her reports though.

OP posts:

Report

PinkOboe · 12/01/2015 18:19

I remember when this story first broke someone linked to a fan chat site or somesuch where years previously his predilections were being openly discussed by his fans. It seems there was a period of inaction by the police certainly.

I'm not sure where it how she fits in, I know her name or a version of it was used on that site

I stopped reading tbh. All too ghastly

AnyFucker · 12/01/2015 18:27

Please could you not use the phrase "child porn"

cheers

MoanCollins · 12/01/2015 18:46

Sorry Any Fucker, I genuinely don't know what the correct term is? Just had a quick look and is it supposed to be child abuse imagery? Apologies if that was offensive I had no idea it was.

OP posts:

MoanCollins · 12/01/2015 18:46

It seems like the BBC amongst others use the term child porn so I'm not surprised I didn't know.

OP posts:

Itscurtainsforyou · 12/01/2015 18:53

I think the term most appropriate is images of child sexual abuse as the word "porn" implies consent.

HTH

DoraGora · 12/01/2015 19:00

I can't and won't read or study anything to do with that man. I'd stick with the simplest definitions possible. Pornography, a noun. Pornographic an adjective describing explicit or sexually explicit material for the purpose of titillation.

I'd leave implications out completely.

MarjorieMelon · 12/01/2015 19:00

From what I have read so far she sounds guilty to me. She was actively encouraging him and seemed to be getting a kick out of it. Would a reasonable person go along with this in order to trap him?

AnyFucker · 12/01/2015 19:12

No worries, OP. The more appropriate terms are "images of child sexual abuse" I believe.

Feenie · 12/01/2015 20:48

There's an interesting thread on the David Icke forums about this - general consensus is she is innocent and the police are trying to cover up their own incompetence. I am inclined to go with this since it's v rare for them to insist someone isn't a paedophile on the DI forums and also because she'd have to have been pretty stupid to go the police all those times if she was guilty of the same crimes.

MoanCollins · 12/01/2015 21:00

Yes, but I think assuming anything on the David Icke forum has any credibility goes a bit far.

In the closing speech today they said that they were talking about this daily for 10 months. He sent her 2 images of him raping a child and also admitted to her in writing that he'd raped a child in May 2011. But she didn't report it, and in fact carried on exchanging child abuse images with him. She didn't report that until Feb 2012, and even then she just gave them the images and not the confession. It seems like she only reported him when he lost interest in her because she didn't have a baby he could abuse and other women did.

OP posts:

Feenie · 12/01/2015 21:03

Yes, but I think assuming anything on the David Icke forum has any credibility goes a bit far.

So said everyone before the Savile exposure.

TwinkieTwinkle · 12/01/2015 21:15

Been following this very closely since the start. I was a big Lostprophets fan and was shocked when it came out about Ian Watkins. Initially I was in full support of this woman, until I saw her attitudes on twitter to people, was shown screen grabs of things she had said over the years. Her selling that photo to the Daily Mirror was the tipping point for me. In my opinion she i guilty as sin, she wanted to hold onto him, any way possible.

Incidentally, that David Icke forum: she would post on it trying to make it sound like she had supporters. The woman is genuinely crackers, fake profiles, fantasy life, very odd.

MoanCollins · 12/01/2015 21:47

Savile was everywhere though. It was an open secret for years.

There was a huge thread about Savile on Digital Spy years and years before he died and Digital Spy is a well balanced well run forum.

Yes they did pick up on a lot of sexual abuse stuff before it hit mainstream news, but they also think that it is committed by people who are lizards.

Twinkie, that's the picture of the little girl with the cocaine on a picture right? I agree, that was pretty low to sell that. The little girl was fairly identifiable too.

OP posts:

WillBeatJanuaryBlues · 12/01/2015 21:51

agree its not child porn its child abuse images, but dont worry you were not to know....

its too shocking I cant listen or follow this one.

TwinkieTwinkle · 12/01/2015 21:59

Yup. Her bull of 'saving children' was well and truly fucked at that point. What person in their right mind would sell a photo to a paper of an easily identified child. She could have easily shown it to the journalist and they could have confirmed its existence, but that wouldn't have been any where near as much attention for her. The verdict tomorrow will be interesting, I think it must be a difficult one for a jury to decide.

maggiethemagpie · 12/01/2015 23:47

I think she is probably guilty. I mean, sounds like she got off on turning him on whether or not she as actually turned on by the material herself which I really don't like to think she was.

Only1scoop · 12/01/2015 23:49

I remember her interviews and the fact she said it had been reported....
How the reports were not investigated

All seems very sinister though.

MoanCollins · 13/01/2015 12:01

Mumsnet are going to change the title so it no longer contains the term which people find offensive.

OP posts:

TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet · 13/01/2015 16:54

hi there
We've amended the title of this thread.
Thanks MNHQ

AnyFucker · 13/01/2015 17:22

thanks Olivia

Feenie · 14/01/2015 19:09

Cleared of all charges then.

I did think that a guilty person would never go to the police on all those occasions. She also contacted social services twice and contacted the father of one victim. Guilty people don't tend to do any of those things.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 14/01/2015 19:44

Cleared

She reported what she was doing, at least 2 police forces and social services departments seemed to have been uninterested. Maybe, if they had investigated when she first reported him in 2008, babies and children would have been saved from being raped and otherwise sexually abused by this man.

She went about hings all arse about face, but then, if you knew someone was sexually abusing children, and was planning to sexually abuse babies, reported it and no one did anything, what lengths might you go to to protect them?

Odd case all round.

AnyFucker · 14/01/2015 20:17

I find it very odd

I saw her outside court saying she "did if for the kids, just her against the world"

er, really ?

Feenie · 14/01/2015 20:22

So many people would not listen to her though. I agree she went to extraordinary lengths, but she really did try to tell somebody, on multiple occasions - IW's mother is another one of the list.

She must have thought she would go mad with the injustice of it all.

MoanCollins · 14/01/2015 20:24

The victim that she contacted social services about and contacted the father wasn't actually abused by Ian Watkins and he wasn't convicted of any charges relating to that child.

I'm not convinced. She was talking to him for 10 months and had a picture of him raping a child which she didn't report for 5 months and an admission that he had raped a child which she never reported. She only reported an absolutely tiny proportion of the material she had on him....almost like she didn't want them to catch him, just scare him. Think it was the wrong call.

It will be interesting to see how her press goes over the next few days.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.